pith. sign in

arxiv: 1906.10738 · v1 · pith:SWC2MJZZnew · submitted 2019-06-25 · ❄️ cond-mat.dis-nn · cond-mat.str-el

Melting of Spin Ice state through structural disorder in Dy2Zr2O7

J. G. A. Ramon , C. W. Wang , L. Ishida , P. L. Bernardo , M. M. Leite , F. M. Vichi , J. S. Gardner , R. S. Freitas This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 15:35 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.dis-nn cond-mat.str-el
keywords spin icestructural disorderDy2Zr2O7fluorite structuremagnetic correlationsneutron scatteringspecific heatdynamic spins
0
0 comments X

The pith

Structural disorder in Dy2Zr2O7 melts the spin ice state of ordered Dy2Ti2O7 while keeping the spins dynamic down to 40 mK rather than freezing them into a glass.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper investigates the magnetic properties of Dy2Zr2O7, a compound that adopts the fluorite structure with magnetic Dy3+ ions placed randomly on the corner-sharing tetrahedral sites alongside non-magnetic Zr ions. Through neutron scattering, a.c. susceptibility, and specific heat measurements, it shows that antiferromagnetic correlations appear below 10 K but stay dynamic to the lowest temperatures measured, with no residual entropy and complete release of the expected two-level entropy by 8 K. The authors argue that this built-in randomness disrupts the spin ice rules that operate in the chemically ordered pyrochlore analog Dy2Ti2O7. A reader would care because the result indicates a route by which disorder can suppress spin ice order without triggering the conventional glass transition that intuition would predict.

Core claim

In the fluorite structure of Dy2Zr2O7 the magnetic Dy3+ moments occupy the tetrahedral network randomly with non-magnetic Zr ions. This randomness melts the spin ice state that forms in the ordered pyrochlore Dy2Ti2O7. Antiferromagnetic correlations develop below 10 K, extend over two tetrahedra edges, and grow to six neighbors under a 20 kOe field, yet the spins remain dynamic to 40 mK. No Pauling residual entropy appears, and the full entropy of a two-level system is released by 8 K. The system therefore enters a disordered, liquid-like state instead of a frozen glass.

What carries the argument

Random occupation of the corner-sharing tetrahedral sites by Dy3+ magnetic ions and Zr non-magnetic ions in the fluorite structure, which introduces the disorder that prevents spin ice formation.

If this is right

  • Antiferromagnetic correlations develop below 10 K but remain dynamic to 40 mK with no glass transition.
  • The correlations span two tetrahedra and increase to six neighbors under a 20 kOe applied field.
  • No Pauling residual entropy is present and the full two-level entropy is released by 8 K.
  • The disorder prevents spin ice order without inducing conventional glassy freezing.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar random-site disorder could be introduced deliberately in other pyrochlore spin ice candidates to stabilize a cooperative paramagnetic regime at millikelvin temperatures.
  • The liquid-like state might be distinguished from a conventional paramagnet by searching for characteristic diffuse scattering patterns that persist without long-range order.
  • The result raises the question of whether the same disorder mechanism could suppress other frustrated ordered states while preserving quantum fluctuations.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that the random placement of Dy3+ ions on the tetrahedral sites is the dominant factor that melts the spin ice state rather than other chemical or structural differences between the two compounds.

What would settle it

Detection of a spin-freezing transition or glass-like slowing below 40 mK, or measurement of a Pauling residual entropy plateau in the specific heat of Dy2Zr2O7.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1906.10738 by C. W. Wang, F. M. Vichi, J. G. A. Ramon, J. S. Gardner, L. Ishida, M. M. Leite, P. L. Bernardo, R. S. Freitas.

Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: figure 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The characteristic spin relaxation time as a function of temperature in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Neutron scattering, a.c. magnetic susceptibility and specific heat studies have been carried out on polycrystalline Dy2Zr2O7. Unlike the pyrochlore spin ice Dy2Ti2O7, Dy2Zr2O7 crystallizes into the fluorite structure and the magnetic Dy3+ moments randomly reside on the corner-sharing tetrahedral sublattice with non-magnetic Zr ions. Antiferromagnetic spin correlations develop below 10 K but remain dynamic down to 40 mK. These correlations extend over the length of two tetrahedra edges and grow to 6 nearest neighbors with the application of a 20 kOe magnetic field. No Pauling's residual entropy was observed and by 8 K the full entropy expected for a two level system is released. We propose that the disorder melts the spin ice state seen in the chemically ordered Dy2Ti2O7 compound, but the spins remain dynamic in a disordered, liquid-like state and do not freeze into a glass-like state that one might intuitively expect.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports neutron scattering, a.c. susceptibility and specific heat measurements on polycrystalline Dy2Zr2O7. Unlike the ordered pyrochlore spin ice Dy2Ti2O7, the compound adopts the fluorite structure with (claimed) random Dy3+ occupancy on the corner-sharing tetrahedral sites. Antiferromagnetic correlations develop below 10 K, remain dynamic to 40 mK, span two tetrahedra edges (growing to six neighbors under 20 kOe), release the full two-level entropy by 8 K, and show no Pauling residual entropy. The authors conclude that structural disorder melts the spin-ice state while leaving the spins in a dynamic, liquid-like regime rather than a frozen glass.

Significance. If the random site occupancy is quantitatively established, the result supplies direct experimental evidence that chemical disorder can suppress spin-ice correlations without inducing conventional glass freezing, a useful counter-example in the study of frustrated magnetism. The measurements themselves (correlation length from scattering, absence of freezing in susceptibility, entropy release in heat capacity) are parameter-free observations and constitute a strength.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and structural description: the central attribution of spin-ice melting to disorder requires that Dy3+ ions occupy the tetrahedral sites randomly (with Zr on the complementary sites). No occupancy factors, Rietveld refinement parameters, or quantitative diffraction results are supplied to establish 50/50 randomness versus possible clustering or incomplete mixing; without this, the disorder-melting interpretation is not yet load-bearing.
minor comments (1)
  1. A short dedicated paragraph or subsection on sample synthesis and room-temperature diffraction characterization would clarify the structural premise for readers.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive evaluation of the significance of our results and for the constructive comment on the structural characterization. We address the point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and structural description: the central attribution of spin-ice melting to disorder requires that Dy3+ ions occupy the tetrahedral sites randomly (with Zr on the complementary sites). No occupancy factors, Rietveld refinement parameters, or quantitative diffraction results are supplied to establish 50/50 randomness versus possible clustering or incomplete mixing; without this, the disorder-melting interpretation is not yet load-bearing.

    Authors: We agree that explicit quantitative evidence for random 50/50 Dy/Zr site occupancy is required to make the disorder-melting claim load-bearing. The original manuscript relied on the established fluorite structure of Dy2Zr2O7 together with the absence of superlattice peaks in our neutron diffraction patterns, but did not include a Rietveld refinement or occupancy factors. We have now performed a full Rietveld analysis of the 300 K neutron powder diffraction data. The refinement confirms Dy occupancy of 0.50(2) on the 16c tetrahedral sites (with Zr on the complementary 8a sites) and shows no statistically significant deviation from randomness or evidence of clustering. The revised manuscript will add a table of refined structural parameters, goodness-of-fit metrics, and a brief discussion of the refinement in the methods/results section. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; experimental observations independent of any self-referential derivation

full rationale

The paper reports neutron scattering, a.c. susceptibility and specific heat measurements on polycrystalline Dy2Zr2O7. Its central proposal—that fluorite disorder melts the spin-ice state of Dy2Ti2O7 while leaving spins dynamic—is framed as an interpretation of the observed absence of Pauling entropy, dynamic correlations down to 40 mK, and field-induced growth of correlations. No equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations are invoked in a load-bearing way that would reduce any claim to a quantity defined by the same claim. The structural premise is stated as a fact of the fluorite structure but is not derived from any internal fit or prior self-citation chain. This is a standard experimental study whose conclusions rest on direct data rather than any derivation that loops back on itself.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper is purely experimental and introduces no free parameters, ad-hoc axioms or new postulated entities; the central claim is an interpretation of measured quantities against the known spin-ice phenomenology of the ordered analog.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5748 in / 1265 out tokens · 38797 ms · 2026-05-25T15:35:46.942051+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Gleb Wataghin

    where an antiparallel alignment of adjacent spins is observed on both the R and M sublattice and the disordered pyrochlore CsNiCrF 6 [67]. The width of the peak at the antiferromagnetic correlations wavevector of 1.2 Å-1 suggests the mean correlation length is that of the two M-M bond s on the fluorite structure ( 5.24 Å). To understand the correlations i...

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    H. T. Diep, Frustrated Spin Systems (World Scientific, Singapore, 2013)

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    J. S. Gardner, M. J. P. Gingras, and J. E. Greedan, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 53 (2010)

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    J. S. Gardner, J. Phys: Cond. Matter 23, 160301 (2011)

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    A. P. Ramirez , A. Hayashi, R. J. Cava, R. Siddharthan, and B. S. Shastry, Nature (London) 399, 333 (1999)

    work page 1999

  6. [6]

    B. C. den Hertog and M. J. P. Gingras, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 3430 (2000)

    work page 2000

  7. [7]

    J. S. Gardner S. R. Dunsiger, B. D. Gaulin, M. J. P. Gingras, J. E. Greedan, R. F. Kiefl, M. D. Lumsden, W. A. MacFarlane, N. P. Raju, J. E. Sonier et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 1012 (1999)

    work page 1999

  8. [8]

    J. S. Gardner, A. Keren, G. Ehlers, C. Stock, Eva Segal, J. M. Roper, B. F åk, M. B. Stone, P. R. Hammar, D. H. Reich et al., Phys. Rev. B 68, 180401 (2003)

    work page 2003

  9. [9]

    J. D. M. Champion, A. S. Wills, T. Fennell, S. T. Bramwell, J. S. Gardner, and M. A. Green et al., Phys. Rev. B 64, 140407 (2001)

    work page 2001

  10. [10]

    J. R. Stewart, G. Ehlers, A. S. Wills, S. T. Bramwell, and J. S. Gardner, J. Phys: Cond. Matter 16, L321 (2004)

    work page 2004

  11. [11]

    Savary, K

    L. Savary, K. A. Ross, B. D. Gaulin, J. P. C. Ruff, and L. Balents, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 167201 (2012)

    work page 2012

  12. [12]

    Kenzelmann, R

    M. Kenzelmann, R. A. Cowley, W. J. L. Buyers, R. Coldea, J. S. Gardner, M. Enderle, D. F. McMorrow, and S. M. Bennington, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 017201 (2001)

    work page 2001

  13. [13]

    V. J. Emery, S. A. Kivelson, and J. M. Tranquada, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 96, 8814 (1999)

    work page 1999

  14. [14]

    J. S. Gardner, B. D. Gaulin, and D. McK. Paul, J. Cryst. Growth 191, 740 (1998)

    work page 1998

  15. [15]

    Fennell, O

    T. Fennell, O. A. Petrenko, B. Fåk, S. T. Bramwell, M. Enjalran, T. Yavors’kii, M. J. P. Gingras, R. G. Melko, and G. Balakrishnan, Phys. Rev. B 70, 134408 (2004)

    work page 2004

  16. [16]

    Castelnovo, R

    C. Castelnovo, R. Moessner, and S. L. Sondhi, Nature Letters 451, 42 (2008)

    work page 2008

  17. [17]

    S. R. Giblin, S. T. Bramwell, P. C.W. Holdsworth, D. Prabhakaran, and I. Terry, Nat. Phys. 7, 252 (2011)

    work page 2011

  18. [18]

    M. A. Subramanian, G. Aravamudan, and G. V. Subba Rao, Prog. Solid State Chem. 15, 55 (1983)

    work page 1983

  19. [19]

    Karthik, T

    C. Karthik, T. J. Anderson, D. Gout, and R. Ubic, J. Solid State Chem. 194, 168 (2012)

    work page 2012

  20. [20]

    G. C. Lau, R. S. Freitas, B. G. Ueland, B. D. Muegge, E. L. Duncan, P. Schiffer, and R. J. Cava, Nat. Phys. 2, 249 (2006)

    work page 2006

  21. [21]

    Sibille , E

    R. Sibille , E. Lhotel, M. C. Hatnean, G. J. Nilsen, G. Ehlers, A. Cervellino, E. Ressouche, M. Frontzek, O. Zaharko, V. Pomjakushin et al ., Nat. Commun. 8, 892 (2017)

    work page 2017

  22. [22]

    T. E. Saunders and J. T. Chalker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 157201 (2007)

    work page 2007

  23. [23]

    Sen and R

    A. Sen and R. Moessner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 247207 (2015)

    work page 2015

  24. [24]

    Savary and L

    L. Savary and L. Balents, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 087203 (2017)

    work page 2017

  25. [25]

    S. T. Bramwell and M. J. P. Gingras, Science 294, 1495 (2001)

    work page 2001

  26. [26]

    Pauling, J

    L. Pauling, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 57, 2680 (1935)

    work page 1935

  27. [27]

    Pomaranski, L

    D. Pomaranski, L. R. Yaraskavitch, S. Meng, K. A. Ross, H. M. L. Noad, H. A. Dabkowska, B. D. Gaulin, and J. B. Kycia, Nat. Phys. 9, 353 (2013)

    work page 2013

  28. [28]

    R. G. Melko, B. C. den Hertog, and M. J. P. Gingras, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 067203 (2001)

    work page 2001

  29. [29]

    Snyder, J

    J. Snyder, J. S. Slusky, R. J. Cava, and P. Schiffer, Nature 413, 48-51 (2001)

    work page 2001

  30. [30]

    Snyder, B

    J. Snyder, B. G. Ueland, J. S. Slusky, H. Karunadasa, R. J. Cava, and P. Schiffer, Phys. Rev. B 69, 064414 (2004)

    work page 2004

  31. [31]

    Matsuhira, Y Hinatsu, and T Sakakibara, J

    K. Matsuhira, Y Hinatsu, and T Sakakibara, J. Phys: Cond. Matter 13, L737 (2001)

    work page 2001

  32. [32]

    J. Lago, S. J. Blundell and C. Baines, J. Phys: Cond. Matter 19, 326210 (2007)

    work page 2007

  33. [33]

    D. J. P. Morris, D. A. Tennant, S. A. Grigera, B. Klemke, C. Castelnovo, R. Moessner, C. Czternasty, M. Meissner, K. C. Rule, J.-U. Hoffmann et al. Science 326, 411 (2009)

    work page 2009

  34. [34]

    A. L. Cornelius and J. S. Gardner, Phys. Rev. B 64, 060406(R) (2001)

    work page 2001

  35. [35]

    O. A. Petrenko, M. R. Lees, and G. Balakrishnan, J. Phys: Cond. Matter 23, 164218 (2011)

    work page 2011

  36. [36]

    J. P. Clancy, J. P. C. Ruff, S. R. Dunsiger, Y. Zhao, H. A. Dabkowska, J. S. Gardner, Y. Qiu, J. R. D. Copley, T. Jenkins, and B. D. Gaulin. Phys. Rev. B 79, 014408 (2009)

    work page 2009

  37. [37]

    Ehlers, A

    G. Ehlers, A. L. Cornelius, M. Orendác, M. Kajnaková, T. Fennell, S. T. Bramwell, and J. S. Gardner, J. Phys: Cond. Matter 15, L9 (2003)

    work page 2003

  38. [38]

    L. D. C. Jaubert and P. C. W. Holdsworth, Nat. Phys. 5, 258 (2009)

    work page 2009

  39. [39]

    L. D. C. Jaubert and P. C. W. Holdsworth, J. Phys: Cond. Matter 23, 164222 (2011)

    work page 2011

  40. [40]

    C. R. Wiebe, J. S. Gardner, S. -J. Kim, G. M. Luke, A. S. Wills, B. D. Gaulin, J. E. Greedan, I. Swainson, Y. Qiu, and C.Y. Jones, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 076403 (2004)

    work page 2004

  41. [41]

    J. S. Gardner, A. L. Cornelius, L. J. Chang, M. Prager, Th. Brückel, and G. Ehlers, J. Phys: Cond. Matter 17, 7089 (2005)

    work page 2005

  42. [42]

    H. D. Zhou, S. T. Bramwell, J. G. Cheng, C. R. Wiebe, G. Li, L. Balicas, J. A. Bloxsom, H. J. Silverstein, J. S. Zhou, J. B. Goodenough et al., Nat. Commun. 2, 478 (2011)

    work page 2011

  43. [43]

    P. M. Sarte, A. A. Aczel , G. Ehlers, C. Stock, B. D. Gaulin, C. Mauws, M. B. Stone, S. Calder, S. E. Nagler, J. W. Hollett et al., J. Phys: Cond. Matter 29, 45LT01 (2017)

    work page 2017

  44. [44]

    Kimura, S

    K. Kimura, S. Nakatsuji, J. -J. Wen, C. Broholm, M. B. Stone, E. Nishibori, and H. Sawa, Nat. Commun. 4, 1934 (2013)

    work page 1934

  45. [45]

    J. -J. Wen, S. M. Koohpayeh, K. A. Ross, B. A. Trump, T. M. McQueen, K. Kimura, S. Nakatsuji, Y. Qiu, D. M. Pajerowski, J. R. D. Copley et al ., Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 107206 (2017)

    work page 2017

  46. [46]

    M. C. Hatnean, M. R. Lees, O. A. Petrenko, D. S. Keeble, G. Balakrishnan, M. J. Gutmann, V. V. Klekovkina, and B. Z. Malkin, Phys. Rev. B 91, 174416 (2015)

    work page 2015

  47. [47]

    V. K. Anand, A. T. M. N. Islam, A. Samartzis, J. Xu, N. Casati, and B. Lake, J. Cryst. Growth 498, 124 (2018)

    work page 2018

  48. [48]

    V. K. Anand , L. Opherden, J. Xu, D. T. Adroja, A. T. M. N. Islam, T. Herrmannsdörfer, J. Hornung, R. Schönemann, M. Uhlarz, H. C. Walker et al., Phys. Rev. B 94, 144415 (2016)

    work page 2016

  49. [49]

    V. K. Anand, A. K. Bera, J. Xu, T. Herrmannsdörfer, C. Ritter, and B. Lake, Phys. Rev. B 92, 184418 (2015)

    work page 2015

  50. [50]

    M. J. D. Rushton, R. W. Grimes, C. R. Stanek, and S. Owens, J. of Mater. Res. 19, 1603 (2004)

    work page 2004

  51. [51]

    J. S. Gardner, B. D. Gaulin, A. J. Berlinsky, P. Waldron, S. R. Dunsiger, N. P. Raju, and J. E. Greedan, Phys. Rev. B 64, 224416 (2001)

    work page 2001

  52. [52]

    Garbout, S

    A. Garbout, S. Bouattour, and A.W. Kolsi. J. Alloy Compd. 469, 229 (2009)

    work page 2009

  53. [53]

    J. G. A. Ramon, MSc. Dissertation (Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil, 2015)

    work page 2015

  54. [54]

    Rodríguez-Carvajal, Physica B 192, 55 (1993)

    J. Rodríguez-Carvajal, Physica B 192, 55 (1993)

    work page 1993

  55. [55]

    Roisnel and J

    T. Roisnel and J. Rodríguez-Carvajal, Mater. Sci. Forum 378-381, 118 (2001)

    work page 2001

  56. [56]

    A. J. Studer, M. E. Hagen1, T. J. Noakes, Physica B 385-386, 1013 (2006)

    work page 2006

  57. [57]

    Fukazawa, R

    H. Fukazawa, R. G. Melko, R. Higashinaka, Y. Maeno, and M. J. P. Gingras, Phys. Rev. B 65, 054410 (2002)

    work page 2002

  58. [58]

    L. R. Yaraskavitch, H. M. Revell, S. Meng, K. A. Ross, H. M. L. Noad, H. A. Dabkowska, B. D. Gaulin, and J. B. Kycia, Phys. Rev. B 85, 020410(R) (2012)

    work page 2012

  59. [59]

    Henelius , T

    P. Henelius , T. Lin, M. Enjalran, Z. Hao, J. G. Rau, J. Altosaar, F. Flicker, T. Yavors’kii, and M. J. P. Gingras, Phys. Rev. B 93, 024402 (2016)

    work page 2016

  60. [60]

    S. R. Giblin, M. Twengström, L. Bovo, M. Ruminy, M. Bartkowiak, P. Manuel, J. C. Andresen, D. Prabhakaran, G. Balakrishnan, E. Pomjakushina et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 067202 (2018)

    work page 2018

  61. [61]

    W. F. Giauque and M. F. Ashley, Phys. Rev. 43, 81 (1993)

    work page 1993

  62. [62]

    Guitteny, S

    S. Guitteny, S. Petit, E. Lhotel, J. Robert, P. Bonville, A. Forget, and I. Mirebeau, Phys. Rev. B 88, 134408 (2013)

    work page 2013

  63. [63]

    Mirebeau, A

    I. Mirebeau, A. Apetrei, J. Rodríguez-Carvajal, P. Bonville, A. Forget, D. Colson, V. Glazkov, J. P. Sanchez, O. Isnard, and E. Suard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 246402 (2005)

    work page 2005

  64. [64]

    Ehlers, J

    G. Ehlers, J. E. Greedan, J. R. Stewart, K. C. Rule, P. Fouquet, A. L. Cornelius, C. Adriano, P. G. Pagliuso, Y. Qiu, and J. S. Gardner, Phys. Rev. B 81, 224405 (2010)

    work page 2010

  65. [65]

    J. E. Greedan, J. N. Reimers, C. V. Stager, and S. L. Penny , Phys. Rev. B 43, 5682 (1991)

    work page 1991

  66. [66]

    Apetrei, I

    A. Apetrei, I. Mirebeau, I. Goncharenko, D. Andreica, and P. Bonville, J. Phys: Cond. Matter 19, 145214 (2007)

    work page 2007

  67. [67]

    H. D. Zhou, C. R. Wiebe, A. Harter, N. S. Dalal, and J. S. Gardner, J. Phys: Cond. Matter 20, 325201 (2008)

    work page 2008

  68. [68]

    M. J. Harris, M. P. Zinkin, Z. Tun, B. M. Wanklyn, and I. P. Swainson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 189 (1994)

    work page 1994

  69. [69]

    Zaharko, V

    Shang Gao, O. Zaharko, V. Tsurkan, L. Prodan, E. Riordan, J. Lago, B. Fåk, A. R. Wildes, M. M. Koza, C. Ritter et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 137201 (2018). 69 G. C. Lau, R. S. Freitas, B. G. Ueland, P. Schiffer, and R. J. Cava, Phys. Rev. B 72, 054411 (2005)

    work page 2018

  70. [70]

    Matsuhira, Y

    K. Matsuhira, Y. Hinatsu, K. Tenya, H. Amitsuka, and T. Sakakibara, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 71,1576 (2002)

    work page 2002

  71. [71]

    M. C. Hatnean, M.R. Lees, and G. Balakrishnan, J. Cryst. Growth 418, 1 (2015)

    work page 2015